About your Search

20121202
20121210
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7
government and the lloyd. this is about an hour. -- and deloitte. this is about an hour. >> good morning. i'm the head of bloomberg government. thank you for joining us today, and thank you to deloitte for partnering with us in this event. when we launched bloomberg government just about two years ago, we had the aspiration of creating a one-stop shop, with data, tools, news, and analysis to help government affairs and government sales professionals make better and faster decisions. we went a long way toward achieving that aspiration. a big part of it is conversations on the important issues that face our nation today, particularly at the intersection of business and government. today's discussion on the fiscal cliff clearly meets that. we are honored to have such a thoughtful panel. senator mark warner, senator bob corker, congressman chris van hollen, governor tim pawlenty, who is currently president and ceo of the financial services roundtable. moderating our discussion today is al hunt. we always love having al over here. he really put bloomberg on the map here in d.c. yesterday it was
poll. it found 62% of americans would like to see the federal government leaders compromise on an agreement to avoid the fiscal cliff budget measures set to go into effect next month. more than twice the 25% who want leaders to stick to their principles. a majority of all party groups favor compromise. here is the breakdown from the gallup organization. 71% of democrats say they want a compromise bursa's 21% who say the party should stick to their principles. among republicans 55% one compromise. 35% say stick to your principles. the gallup poll also found americans are more optimistic and pessimistic that an agreement will be reached before the deadline. 58% say it is a very or somewhat likely leaders will find a solution. 39% say it is not likely. democrats are much more optimistic. 77% of democrats believe it is somewhat likely an agreement will be reached compared to 33% of republicans. we will be getting to all of the latest on the fiscal clef. we want to hear from you about the idea of compromise. comments already coming in from the facebook page. you can give us a cal
this to a c.e.o. in the crowd. so maybe david, you could take this. what role should the government play in the future of -- your business is transportation, too -- in the transportation business with this? look, we are mired in conversations about a fiscal cliff on the very right now. we're talking about long-term infrastructure build-out, a long-term energy plan. what role should c.e.o.'s have and the federal government have in making sure this gets done? >> this is the perfect opportunity for the federal government and for state governments to work together to achieve a common goal, right? there's plenty of times where, when we run a business, our interests might not coalesce with the interests of either of the parties. as fred said, this is the opportunity that we have never had in this country before, where you can have consumer, the business and the governments all working together to take advantage of this huge resource, if you want to call it saudi america. from a waste management perspective, for us it makes so much sense, because it makes business sense. we get about $1.65 equi
in of government at the federal level. that has nothing to do with this. that would be more on the spending cuts. host: what do you make of the back a plan being reported by the new york times saying if we cannot come to some sort of deal, we should just passed tax cuts for the middle class americans and then fight later on for spending cuts and increasing taxes for the wealthy? caller: the tax cut for the general population is great. that would be good for stimulating the economy. but the big thing is hit there needs to be a balanced plan. we need more revenue and we need less spending at the federal level. what is good for california is not good for virginia and what's good for virginia is not good for maryland. maybe we need to focus on reducing the federal government overview. been there would not be as much spending or taxes needed. then let the states deal with the taxes they need to take care of their citizens. host: robert, milwaukee, democratic caller. caller: i would like to say that the republican party, not all of them, i think it's just the tea party, they are destroying the republi
, a bloomberg government former members of both parties said negotiators should be able to reach an agreement. in an hour, president obama speaks to ceo's at the business roundtable, followed by news conferences with house speaker john boehner and minority leader nancy pelosi. >> the supreme court will look at what was passed in 2008 by a majority of six-three, i believe, and they will say that is precedent. indiana had a voter i.d. -- >> they decided on the indiana case, it was constitutional for them to establish id they did not say all of that was subsequently -- >> they talked about indiana. you misrepresented what i said. the supreme court is the law of the land. >> when i hear these accusations that black people voter i.d. loss disproportionately affect minorities -- implies to me that somehow we have something missing in our brain. as -- if white americans can get id to vote and go through all the processes to follow the laws, what are you telling black people? that somehow they are not good enough? that is what bothers me about a lot of the rhetoric coming from democrats and the left.
. and so, listen, i understand ideologically why people who believe that they want to shrink government up so small they can drown it in a bathtub may always lead that way, but it's not in the best interest of the american people in my humble opinion. >> i am going to be measured in my response because you all have an obligation to ask questions. but i hope at some point you all who have heard us on this side and the other side of the aisle talking about this will do the math, quite honestly. i can tabulate very quickly for you $3 trillion worth of cuts that have now gone into law that democrats have been there on the tough -- on those tough negotiations. the chairman mentioned $1 trillion that was exacted as a result of the budget control act where the republicans were threatening for the first time have the nation default on its credit if we didn't do something. $1 trillion. that's already taking place, the $1 trillion in cuts. there's another $1.2 trillion that came from the same law, as we know, as the sequester, that also by law will start to take place. that's $2.2 trillion. we talke
options will get the revenue for the government. >> in terms of getting rid of deductions or expanding the base, there's basically three approaches to we can take. one is the overall cap. capping the total amount of deductions or capping the tax value of deductions like maya and marty feld stein have put forth and the advantage to that is politically you're not actually attacking anyone -- any one specific subsidy, you're just saying we're putting a cap on the overall system. a second way is what john podesta mentioned, we are going to change specific items but wohl change them all in the same way. you're not special, we're not picking on you, so we're going to change all deductions to 18% or something like that. the third way which is probably the perfect way from the economic approach is to deal with each of these on an individual bay sess. tax expenditures generally cover an enormous range of activities whether it's ex-cluges or deductions or credits or lower rates, etc. we call them all tax expenditures but it shouldn't hide the underlying heterogeneity. so a package that went afte
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7

Terms of Use (31 Dec 2014)